Malaysian Hudud Law Controversy

As discussed before on this blog (Malaysia's turn to Islamism? and Is Religious Nationalism in Malaysia an end in itself or just a mean to continue the erstwhile Malay Nationalism?), Islam had been part of Malaysian nationalism since independence and its role is increasing. Since the early 1980s, this religious nationalism is fueling Islamization of government in the multi-ethnic, multi-religious country. 

A bill to enhance Islamic punishments in Malaysia is currently dividing the country and the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN, Trans. National Front). The private member’s bill presented in the parliament on 27th May sought to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 and to enhance the power of Shariah Courts. This bill was introduced by the Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang. The Islamist party, PAS, has been trying to introduce Hudud laws in Malaysia for decades. It had passed Hudud laws in states (Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment 1999 and the Syariah Criminal Offences (Hudud and Qisas) Enactment, Terengganu, 2002) under its control but as they were in conflict with Federal laws, they were never operational. The PAS is, therefore, trying to get a federal approval/exemption for its laws. It twice tried to present a similar bill in federal parliament last year but failed. This latest bill would have died but for the intervention of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) minister, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said. With only 14 members in the house of 222, the PAS did not have to power to get its bill pass even the first stage. The UMNO is the largest party in the Barisan Nasional and is led by Prime Minister Najib. The UMNO, with the help of its partners, has ruled Malaysia since independence. All Prime Ministers of Malaysia have been members of the UMNO.

Critics have denounced the Abdul Hadi Awang bill, calling it ‘Hudud law’ to link with Quranic punishments, such amputation and stoning. They contend that the law will be a disaster for Malaysia because of the following reasons:

• It will make Malaysia one step closer to being a theocratic state;
• It will introduce two criminal/judicial system in Malaysia, which is unconstitutional;
• It will be applicable to the whole country and not limited to the PAS-ruled states;
• It will be applicable to non-Muslims and at the very least affect their civil and political rights;
• Its support by the UMNO is illegitimate. Such an action should not have ignored the decision-making process of Barisan Nasional by bypassing the ruling coalition’s supreme council. – 

Proponents of the bill have argued that media and oppositional parties have made this bill controversial without much reason. They have responded to the critics:

• This bill is not unconstitutional and does not introduce a dual criminal/judicial system as it amends a fifty-years-old law and Shariat Courts have been operating in Malaysia for decades;
• Malaysia is ruled by a constitution, not by Shariah. It is not becoming a theocratic state;
• The bill will only enhance some punishments that the Shariah Courts can give. It does not introduce amputation or stoning in Malaysia, the not even in PAS-ruled states;
• It will not be applicable to non-Muslims;
• It is not against Barisan Nasional agreement.

Although some prominent Muslim Malays have criticized the bill, the non-Muslim associations and groups are particularly incensed and have spearheaded the charge against the bill. Even non-Muslim ministers coming from Barisan Nasional component parties have deplored the bill. Four out of eleven parties in the ruling coalition have criticized the bill. The Malaysian Chinese Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress ministers have threatened to resign, if the bill is passed. Mr. Najib has tried to allay the fears of his coalition parties and others by saying that Hudud punishments would not be introduced, only Shariah Courts would be able to give some more strokes of rotan (Malay word for a cane). Currently, Shariah Court can only give 3-5-6 maximum punishments (three years' jail, an RM 5,000 fine or six strokes of the rotan).

Among them were three Malaysian Chinese Association ( MCA ) ministers and four deputy ministers who have vowed to block the bill at all costs, even to the extent of losing their Cabinet posts, while Malaysian Indian Congress ( MIC )'s president S. Subramaniam has also said he would quit as health minister if the bill gets passed.A news report in Jakarta Post informs:

Several major Chinese organizations in the country have also voiced their strong objection to the bill, stressing that the Islamic criminal law is not suitable to be implemented in a multiracial secular state like Malaysia.
MCA president Liow Tiong Lai announced that his party would launch a civic campaign to get more Malaysians to defend the country's constitution and oppose Islamist party PAS' tabling of the amendment bill on hudud in the parliament.
He reiterated that MCA would take further actions to lead the Chinese community and the rest of the country in this critically important civic movement.
He said he had approached several BN component parties over the campaign in hope of securing their cooperation to work together to defend the constitution for the sake of the country's future survival.

PM Najib with PAS leader Hadi Awang

Source: Malay Mail Online

What is the motive of the UMNO for allowing the PAS to table the bill now? Some have argued that PM Najib wanted to divert attention from the corruption scandal but the corruption scandal has been going on for almost a year now. A more plausible explanation is that bill has been supported to win two by-elections in Malay-majority areas. PM Najib want to demonstrate that he remains popular with Malays that make-up a majority of Malaysians. The timing of the bill’s acceptance by the UMNO is crucial. The bill was tabled on the last day of the Parliament session so it will be debated in October. By that time, the June by-elections would have been won by the UMNO and so the bill, its utility expired, can then be rejected. Futhermore, the Hudud bill is divisive not only for the Barisan Nasional but also for the opposition. Opposition needs to be united to defeat the UMNO, which has dominated Malaysian politics for decades, but the Hudud bill makes alliance between the Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the PAS close to impossible.

Saudi Arabian Nationalism, MBS, Salafism, and Yemen War

A mix of dynastic and Salafist nationalism is on the rise in Saudi Arabia. Intervention in the Yemeni Civil War (named the 'Decisive Storm') has the intended rally around the flag effect. Simeon Kerr wrote about it in the Financial Times in May 2015:

Lines of green Saudi flags hang proudly along Riyadh’s wide highways while screens around the capital broadcast footage on a loop of warplanes flying into combat and massive explosions.Local companies have taken out giant billboards pledging allegiance to the “decisive and determined” King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, while ordinary Saudis have taken to social media to show their support for the new king and the county’s military campaign in Yemen.An unprecedented jingoism — hidden for decades — has swept through Saudi Arabia since King Salman ascended to the throne in January and the launch in March of the aerial campaign against Shia Houthi rebels.Although the air strikes have raised international concern and heightened tensions with Iran, its rival for regional dominance, they have been cheered in Saudi by an increasingly nationalist and sectarian sentiment.

Saudi cartoon showing Iranian cleric being hit by a missile on which Decisive Storm (عاصفة الحزم) is visible.

Source: Al-Watan, Saudi Arabia, March 27, 2015

The royalists, nationalists, and the servile media also have a young, tall, dark and handsome prince to gush about. In one year, Deputy Crown Prince and Second Deputy Prime Minister Prince Mohammad bin Salman has risen from being one of the dozens of grandsons of King Abdul Aziz al-Saud (the founder of Saudi Arabia) to arguably the most powerful man in the kingdom. Prince Mohammad is currently holding three posts:

• He is the head of the Royal Court, meaning he is not only King Salman's son but also his closest advisor; 
• He is the Defense Minister and as Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir is not a royal, Prince Mohammad is more powerful of the two men leading Saudi foreign engagements;
• He is the key economic decision-maker in Saudi Arabia. He chairs the Council of Economic Affairs and Development, the main decision-making body on economic and financial issues in Saudi Arabia. In his capacity as the lead economic player, Prince Mohammad announced his plans for Saudi economy and for the Aramco (the national energy company that drives the Saudi economy) in January 2016. In March 2016, he announced the Saudi Arabia’s Vision for 2030. 

For a country that has been ruled by septuagenarians and octogenarians for decades, it's unprecedented for a thirty-years old to hold such power. His youth and action-oriented leadership have made him popular but many are wary of such concentration of power.

Source: The National Interest

Is Saudi nationalism moving away from Salafism or is Salafism becoming more entrenched in the Saudi nationalism under King Salman?

There is evidence to support both sides of the argument. Since the late 1990s, Saudi Arabia has promoted a more dynastic and ecumenical religious nationalism and has tried to move away from Salafi nationalism. Official media and educational and cultural institutions have focused more on the exceptionalism of Saudi land and royal family than on the exceptionalism of Salafism. Some of the measures taken are given below:

• A cult of King Abdul Aziz has been cultivated;
• King Abdullah curtailed the power of Salafi clerics and religious police; 
• National Museum was founded in Riyadh;
• A new subject 'national education' was introduced in the schools (Saudi Arabia in Transition 2015, page 4-5);
• The first co-educational university in Saudi Arabia was established in 2009 by King Abdullah. He gave it his own name (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology) and quashed criticism of Salafi critics;
• In the early 2000s, Saudi Royals for the first time made some non-Salafi Sunnis and Shias (and women) included in the Shura Council, the highest advisory body. King Abdullah also started a dialogue with the Shiites, who are ten percent of Saudi population and more crucially are a majority in the oil-rich Eastern province;
• Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 announced recently called for 'a tolerant country with Islam as its constitution and moderation as its method.' It declared that the 'values of moderation, tolerance, excellence, discipline, equity, and transparency will be the bedrock of our success.' Emphasis on toleration and moderation show a change of focus and decrease in the power of Salafi religious establishment;
• Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 also had good news for women. It asserted that 'Saudi women are yet another great asset. With over 50 percent of our university graduates being female, we will continue to develop their talents, invest in their productive capabilities and enable them to strengthen their future and contribute to the development of our society and economy.' This was another defeat of Salafi clerics who want women to stay at home;
• The Saudi Arabian leadership has repeatedly said that Yemeni intervention was not  Salafi/Sunni fight with Shi'ism. They have clarified that it was a fight against Iran, which was trying to control the Middle East and carving a new Persian Empire. They have also condemned the sectarian rhetoric of the Daesh (Islamic State), which is mainly Salafi, and called for unity of all Muslims.

Abdullah Hamidaddin, a scholar, has also argued in Al-Arabia that the power of (Salafi) clerics is on the wane in Saudi Arabia:

In recent weeks, the Saudi government has been sending a clear message to its people and the world that economic development and religious extremism cannot coexist. This message is in line with the launch of Saudi Vision 2030, which depends on a social vibrancy that is antithetical to extreme religious values. Of course, people have the right to be religious, but religious institutions - formal and informal - shouldn't be allowed to be above the law to forcefully impose or propagate their views. 

Many analysts consider the recent government announcement to limit the ability of the “Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" which is known in many foreign media outlets as "religious police,” to arrest and interrogate a significant move. But a much more important decision was the appointment during last week’s cabinet reshuffle of Sulaiman Aba al-Khayl as president of the University of Imam Mohammad bin Saud. I personally believe this cements the government’s focus to work closely with the religious institution for the greater good. His appointment came as a pleasant surprise to moderates and reformers. The university had been considered by some that it promotes nationally and internationally hardline views.

However, there is also evidence of the rise in Salafi nationalism after the ascendance of King Salman and Yemeni intervention. While Saudi government has tried to avoid stroking anti-Shia hatred, many official clerics and others people linked with the government have publicly portrayed Yemen and Syrian civil wars as a conflict between real Islam (Salafism/Sunnism) and false Islam (Shiism) and resorted to scaremongering after the start of Saudi campaign against Yemeni Houthis. Angus Mcdowall of Reuters gave examples of such instances:

"If they (Shi'ites) manage to win and control the state, they ravage Sunnis: clerics, women, children, the rulers and the ruled. They attack just like the lion attacks his prey," said Farid al-Ghamdi, a cleric at Mecca's Umm al-Qura seminary in a sermon visible on YouTube...."Decisive Storm came to sever any ambition of the Safavids to besiege Muslims in their own homes," wrote cleric Saad al-Breik to his 1.15 million Twitter followers after the air strikes began last month. 

That kind of scare-mongering has been evident in the Saudi press as well. A report in the daily al-Medina newspaper last week cited "military experts" as saying the Houthis wanted to turn Yemen's capital Sanaa into "an entirely Shi'ite city by 2017" and that the air strikes would thwart "this Iranian plan"....

An analysis of over seven million Arabic tweets from February to August 2015 done by Alexandra Siegel, a PhD student at the New York University showed that while both sides are using social media for hate speech, such tweets from Saudi Arabia are much more common (although it might be said that this conclusion would have something to do with only looking at Arabic tweets).

In the years following the escalation of the Syrian civil war, six main derogatory terms have been frequently used to disparage Shia Muslims online: rafidha (rejectionist), Hizb al-Shaytan (party of the devil), Hizb al-Lat (party of Lat), Majus (Magianism or Zoroastrianism), Nusayri (followers of Nusayr), and Safawi (Safavid). Rafidha refers to Twelver Shias, the largest of the Shia sects, and implies that they have rejected “true” Islam as they allegedly do not recognize Abu Bakr, the first caliph, and his successors as having been legitimate rulers after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. For example, Salafi cleric Abdulaziz al-Tarifi tweeted to his approximately 800,000 followers in February, “Jews and Christians did not used to collude with the rafidhaas they do today in this country and every country.”

The killing of Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr was considered as another sign of anti-Shiite bias although the Saudi government pointed out that dozens of Sunni terrorists were also executed on the same day as Sheikh Nimr and claimed that executions were against terrorism, not against Shia or Shiaism. Furthermore, the coalition of Muslim countries that was announced in December 2015 to fight terrorism does not have one Shia-ruled Muslim country as its members. Bahrain is the only Shia-majority country that is a member of the coalition but it is ruled by a Sunni monarchy. So, it appears that not only Iran but all Shia-ruled countries (Iraq and Lebanon) were excluded from this alliance.

Frederic Wehrey is not very hopeful of future and considers that Salafism has increased its role in Saudi nationalism under King Salman  (Authoritarianism Goes Global: The Challenge to Democracy, p-111-12)

At its core, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains an authoritarian state with a ruling family wedded to monarchical privilege and backed by a deeply anti-liberal and sectarian religious establishment. If anything, it appears to be becoming more so under King Salman. In contrast to King Abdullah, Salman has been wooing the Kingdom’s religiously conservative base of power to shore up public support for his domestic policies and to demonize Iran in the region. The result has been a rollback of Abdullah’s limited reforms and a new, more virulent Sunni-based nationalism. 

Professor Madawi al-Rasheed, one of the most eminent scholars of Saudi politics, claims that the Yemen war is the latest incarnation of militarized Wahhabi nationalism. Writing in Politico, in a column titled "Wahhabi religious nationalism turns ugly," she traces the history of Wahhabi nationalism:

In the Arab world, religious nationalism was invented early in the 20th century in Saudi Arabia, a kingdom whose goal was to unite dispersed people and purify their religious beliefs and practices under the leadership of the Al-Saud. This unification took place as a result of a fringe Islamic revivalist tradition, commonly known as Wahhabiyya, which morphed into a military religious nationalist movement. With time, the project went beyond simple piety: Sharia law and conformity to Islamic teachings were rigorously applied. Under state patronage, this Wahhabiyya was turned into a quasi-nationalist project. Its ideology has proliferated and now inspires Muslims across the globe, fueled by petrodollars and globalization.

Early in the 20th century, an all-encompassing Wahhabi religious nationalism inflamed the imagination of a substantial section of the population of Arabia. It provided the ideological tool to band together to achieve independence from an ailing Ottoman empire that had little control over this peripheral region of its Empire. With a political leadership eager to expand throughout Arabia and to assert its control over the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, Al-Saud militarized the fragmented tribal population, united them under an Islamic flag and mobilized them to wage war against all those who refused their homogenizing theology and radical Wahhabi message.

From the heart of Arabia they spread across the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. They created a state that has remained hostage to the Wahhabi agenda, bigoted interpretations of religious texts, and violent strategies whose aim is to control the behavior of Muslims and non-Muslims in its jurisdictions.

Yemen war, according to Professor al-Rasheed, is linked with the Wahhabi nationalism's quest to obliterate its rivals, who are all heretics and idolators, and bring the people back to its "pure" version of Islam and she argues there is only one way to end the terrorism and recurrent sectarian wars:

The zeal of religious nationalism turns ugly when it moves from the mosque to the military. And even uglier when it becomes the religion of the state. Whether in Saudi Arabia or in the nascent so-called Islamic State, where religious nationalism holds people together by the power of the sword, it is difficult to imagine an alternative way of being Muslim.

In Saudi Arabia, the airstrikes on Yemen launched in March proved a shrewd move for the government: They sparked the imagination of many Saudis who saw them through the prism of their old Wahhabi tradition as countering the hegemony of a rival Shiite power, namely Iran and its alleged Zaydi Houthi clients. The Saudi leadership could not simply watch a rival power such as the Islamic State take all the credit for eradicating heretics. Both Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State came into being as a result of the same type of ideology. Their interests may clash but they share a common goal.

Unless religious nationalism is replaced by new identities about being citizens in a bounded nation in which people enjoy equality and rights, we will continue to see a repeat of the terrorist atrocities committed in the name of Islam.

Growing Jewish Nationalism in Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the pushback

Scholars have been warning about the rising influence of the religious nationalists in the IDF. Not only the number of religious nationalists (or national-religious or religious Zionists as they are called in Israel) is rising in the IDF but they are also serving in more combat roles and rising in ranks. Conversely, the secular Israelis that had been the backbone of the IDF since the 1940s have been reluctant to serve after their mandatory military service in the IDF. Yagil Levy, in his 2014 article in Armed Forces and Society Journal, wrote about the theocratization of the IDF. He gives four reasons why there has been a significant increase in religious influence in the Israeli military:

At the center of this process stands the national-religious sector, which has significantly upgraded its presence in the ranks since the late 1970s. It is argued that four integrated and cumulative processes gradually generated this shift toward the theocratization of the Israeli military: (1) the crafting of institutional arrangements that enable the service of religious soldiers, thereby (2) creating a critical mass of religious soldiers in many combat units, consequently (3) restricting the military command’s Intra-organizational autonomy visa`- vis the religious sector, and paving the road to (4) restricting the Israel Defense Forces autonomy in deploying forces in politically disputable missions.

A Christian Science Monitor report by Christa Bryant in 2015 highlighted the same issue. 

In the early 1990s,...Orthodox men accounted for 2.5 percent of graduates of infantry officer training courses; since then, it’s grown to more than 25 percent, according to a 2013 book. In some combat units, they make up as much as 50 percent of new officers – roughly quadruple their share of Israel’s population. The upward trend, coupled with a parallel decline in the number of combat soldiers and officers coming from secular families, is dramatically changing the face of the IDF. Many Israelis respect religious Zionists like Fund – Orthodox Jews who see the state as playing a part in the prophesied redemption of Israel ­– for their willingness to defend the nation.

But some worry that their worldview could change the character not only of the army – traditionally a secular “people’s army,” where youngsters of all stripes forged lasting bonds during their mandatory two- to three-year service – but the state of Israel itself. One of the most cited concerns is that if Israel agreed to a peace deal with Palestinians, the outsized influence of religious soldiers could complicate the IDF’s evacuation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

An investigative report by Reuters in April 2016 also points towards the same phenomenon and argues that religious nationalists have now reached the highest echelons of Israel's powerful security sector:

The community, sometimes referred to as the ‘national religious’, has increased its presence in both government and the civil service. This year, for the first time ever, the heads of the national police, the Mossad spy agency and the Shin Bet domestic security service are all Religious-Zionists.

Nowhere, though, has the shift been more pronounced than in the military. Most soldiers in the Israeli army are secular or observant Jews, though Druze and Bedouin Arab citizens serve as well. But over the past two decades, academic studies show, the number of Religious-Zionist officers in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has seen a huge increase. The military has also felt the growing influence of rabbis who have introduced matters of faith and politics to the battlefield.

Source: Reuter's Report

The author of the Reuter's report, Maayan Lubell, however, argues that there are signs of pushback from the secular decision-makers that are still a majority in both civilian and security sectors of Israel. Their criticisms are mainly focused on the power of the Military Rabbinate and it's Jewish Awareness Branch that have tried relentlessly, according to many secular Jews, to promote a right-wing, ideological, and religious agenda and to make the IDF an army with a religious mission, instead of a national mission. In 2012, the State Comptroller of Israel criticized the pamphlets circulated among soldiers by the Rabbinate during the 2008-09 Gaza war in which it was written that 'not one millimeter' of land should be ceded to the Palestinians and cruelty to the Palestinians was sometimes necessary. In January 2016, the IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot announced he would remove the Jewish Awareness Branch from the Military Rabbinate. In his letter to the IDF officers, he argued that a military divided over religion and politics could hardly fulfill its mission:

The IDF is the people’s army and includes a wide spectrum of Israeli society...A change is needed with the aim of keeping the IDF a stately army in a democratic country, nurturing that which unites its soldiers.

His decision was severely criticized by the religious nationalists, who are a majority in the current ruling coalition, and they planned to reverse it. More recently, Israel's deputy military chief Major-General Yair Golan’s Holocaust memorial speech touched a nerve when compared behavior of some of the Israelis to the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s:

If there’s something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance it’s the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then - 70, 80 and 90 years ago - and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016.

This was in reference to the killing of an incapacitated Palestinian by an Israeli soldier in cold blood in Hebron in March 2016. However, General Yair was castigated for making this comparison and in the end, because of the political power of the religious nationalists, the IDF had to issue a clarification.

Can the secular Israelis stop the growing Judaization/theocratization of the IDF? The jury is still out but this will surely be the last stand of the secular Israelis.

Bible as Tennessee's Official book: Religious symbolism and the US Constitution

The United States is the only country in the world which neither restricts/regulates the practicing of minority or majority religions nor passes any religious legislation, proving that the church-state relationship in the US is unique in the world. However, as argued in this blog previously, this was not always the case. Religion and state were intertwined for decades at the sub-national level. For example, several US states had religious tests for public office (See American Secularism: A historical view of separation of the Church and the State in the US). Though attempts to link majority religion (Protestantism or Christianity) to the state never stopped in the US, one can detect a new enthusiasm to subvert religious neutrality enshrined in the US Constitution recently.  

On April 14th, 2016, Tennessee Governor vetoed the bill to make Bible the official book of the state. Governor Bill Haslam wrote in a letter to the Beth Harwell, speaker of the statehouse, in which he rejected the arguments of the bill sponsors:

As you know, last year the Attorney General opined that designating The Holy Bible as the official state book of Tennessee would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article 1, § 3, of the Tennessee Constitution which provides that "no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship."

In addition to the constitutional issues with the bill, my personal feeling is that this bill trivializes the Bible, which I believe is a sacred text. If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we shouldn’t be recognizing it only as a book of historical and economic significance. If we are recognizing the Bible as a sacred text, then we are violating the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee by designating it as the official state book. Our founders recognized that when the church and state were combined, it was the church that suffered in the long run. 

I strongly disagree with those who are trying to drive religion out of the public square. All of us should and must bring our deepest beliefs to the places we are called, including governmental service. Men and women motivated by faith have every right and obligation to bring their belief and commitment to the public debate. However, that is very different from the governmental establishment of religion that our founders warned against and our Constitution prohibits.

Is this bill had passed, Tennessee would have been the first state to have the Bible as the official state book. Even the veto was an achievement for bill's sponsors as, in 2015, a similar bill was passed by the House by failed to get the approval of the majority of Tennessee senators. The sponsors of the bill intend to press on and try to override the governor's veto, which only require a simple majority in both houses.

While arguments of those opposing the bill are well known and ably and succinctly presented by the Governor, it is interesting to take a look at the arguments of the bill supporters.

Roger Gannam, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, argued:

The government’s adoption of the Bible as the state book would not be an endorsement of Christianity or Judaism or the contents of the book as religion,” Gannam said. “But certainly could have adopted the Bible as a proper recognition of the influence it had on the foundations of Tennessee law and political thought.

Gannam said that Haslam’s reasoning was based on an “erroneous interpretation of the Constitution.” and called the governor’s veto disappointing. Liberty Counsel offered its legal services free of charge if the bill/law was challenged in courts.

David Fowler, a former Tennessee state senator and president of the Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT), gave four reasons why recognizing the Holy Bible as official state book is important:

• Having a state book is not unconstitutional and no book is more worthy of being Tennessee's state book than the Holy Bible: Regarding the constitutional debate, we need to begin with the acknowledgment there is nothing unconstitutional about having a state book. And as Rep. Matthew Hill said, if we’re going to have a state book, what other book could we name that has had the kind of historical, practical, and economic impact as that of the Bible? There is none.
• We should be neutral to religion, not hostile to religion: But if the constitutional point is that no religious text can even be entered into the debate, then I submit that we are not being neutral on the issue of religion. Rather, we are advancing secularism at the expense of religion. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart remarked in a different Establishment Clause context: "[A] refusal to permit religious exercises [in schools] thus is … not … the realization of state neutrality, but rather … the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at least, … governmental support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private."
• The objective of Establishment Clause was not to divorce religion from the public affairs: Further, from a constitutional perspective, neither the “separation of church and state” referenced in a letter by Thomas Jefferson (and not found in the Constitution) nor the Establishment Clause were ever intended to divorce religion or its influence from the public square. As Supreme Court Justice, Harvard law professor, and author of the first comprehensive treatise on the Constitution, Joseph Story, wrote in 1833: "The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."
• Bible is an important part of our heritage and forgetting one's heritage makes one gullible: Karl Marx once said, “A people without a heritage are easily persuaded.” Mr. Marx was merely reflecting what God knew was true about us. It is why He constantly urged His people to set up memorials; they needed to remember who they were. Whether one was “right” or “wrong” before God in supporting or opposing the “Bible bill” I’ll leave for others to debate, but I am fully persuaded of this: there are many who would have us remove from our public life and the public square any recognition of our religious heritage. And perhaps they do so for the very reason given by Mr. Marx – it makes it easier for them to persuade us to do things that, in a different generation, knowing who we were, we would not do.

Some constitutional experts have contended that such bills are largely symbolic (having no effect on the lives of the people or on how the government was run) and, therefore, it would be difficult to challenge them and to declare them unconstitutional. For example, Douglas Laycock, Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and a leading scholar in the areas of religious liberty, has argued:

Judges are likely to think that this is de minimis - to minor to care about. They don't tell the president that he can't issue Thanksgiving proclamations or host a national prayer breakfast, and judges are likely to view this the same way.

Keith Werhan, a constitutional law expert at Tulane University Law School, agreed, 

You can promote religion so long as it doesn't rise to the level of establishing a church...  Throughout history, the Supreme Court has not gotten worked about these types of things.

As discussed above, the fight for making bible as the state's official book of Tennessee is by no means over. The sponsors of the bill will try to override the veto next week. Similar bills have also been presented in other Southern states. The LA Times reported in January 2016 that two Democratic members of the Mississippi House of Representatives, Tom Miles and Michael Evans, were proposing a bill to make the Bible the official state book of Mississippi. In Louisiana, a similar bill was presented in 2014 but was later withdrawn by the sponsor, Rep. Thomas Carmody. 

Bharat mata ki jai (Victory for/to Mother India)

Is it necessary to chant 'Bharat Mata ki Jai'? Is it a national slogan or a Hindu slogan? Are the people who refuse to say this slogan anti-India or anti-national or traitors? A new controversy is raging across India.

It all started when on March 3rd, (2016) Mohan Bhagwat, the chief (Sarsanghchalak) of the Hindu nationalist organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), spoke at an award ceremony at the RSS headquarters in Reshimbagh. During the speech, he said that the Indian youth should be taught to say `Bharat Mata Ki Jai' as some forces are telling the youth not to say nationalist slogans. This part of his speech was possibly linked to the JNU controversy, however, he did not make any direct reference to it.

Bhagwat's speech did not garner much attention until Asaduddin Owaisi referred to it in his speech in Maharastra on March 14th. Owaisi is the President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and a three-term member of the lower house of the Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) from Hyderabad. At a rally, he said that he would not chant the slogan even if Bhagwat put a knife to his throat as nowhere in the Constitution it is written that one should say Bharat Mata ki Jai. He said that he would say 'Jai Hind' (Victory to Hind) but not Bharat Mata ki Jai.

Two days later, on March 16, a budget debate skirmish in the Maharastra Assembly led Waris Pathan, a member of Owaisi's party and an MLA from Mumbai, to say that he would say 'Jai Hind' but not say 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' even at the cost of his life. The Maharashtra Assembly, where Hindu nationalists (BJP and Shiv Sena) are in the majority,  then unanimously suspended him for disrespecting the country. Shortly after his suspension, Pathan said to the reporters that he did not disrespect India:

I am proud of having been born in this country and god willing will be buried in the very earth here. I have not disrespected my country. And I cannot think of doing so. Jai Hind. Jai Bharat. Jai Maharashtra.

On March 17, the Shiv Sena's mouthpiece Saamana wrote a strongly-worded editorial in which it recommended not only revoking the citizenship of those who refuse to chant the slogan but also beheading of their heads:

Owaisi has insulted Bharat Mata. Now, Muslims should come out in opposition to Owaisi and hail Bharat Mata...Bharat Mata ki jai is a matter of inspiration and devotion to the country. Considerations of caste and religion should not matter on such issues...Owaisi has said that even if someone puts a knife to his throat, he would not say 'Bharat Mata ki Jai.'...Such people's heads should be cut off.

Since then, many other people have commented on this issue. Some have supported Owaisi's stance; others have criticised him but said that there should be no compulsion. If chanting a slogan cannot make a person a patriot, not chanting will not make her a traitor. A timeline of the controversy till April 5th can be seen here.

Why such opposition to 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' while there is universal acceptance for 'Jai Hind'? Are they not convey the same emotion? Some have argued that Bharat Mata slogan is linked with Hindu nationalism from the early twentieth century. A. G. Noorani explains in an article how India as mata/goddess Kali or Durga is fundamental to Hindutva. 

This is the record on “Bharat Mata”. When the upstarts of the BJP tell us that it is “anti-national” not to proclaim it, it is because they do not bear loyalty to Indian nationalism, but to Hindu nationalism or Hindutva.

Source: Indian Feminists.com

Gen. Shankar Roychowdhury,  a former Chief of Army Staff and a former member of Parliament, however, castigated the politicians of all sides for using this Indian battle cry (Bharat Mata ki Jai) for political expediency and electoral gains:

However, in the entirely different world of the Indian Army, Bharat Mata ki Jai is a traditional, multi-faith battlecry, where soldiers of all denominations place their country before their religion. Roared through many voices, Bharat Mata ki Jai has sustained the Indian soldier on many battlefields as he closed with the enemy for the final reckoning ... But now, with elections to many state Assemblies underway, the battlecry of the warrior has been misappropriated by the political demagogues and turned into street slogans by the politician. These are the enemies within the gates whom the soldier may have to deal with if and when called upon to do so.

Western Wall Prayer Controversy in Israel

Whenever states have tried to implement religious laws/rules in modern times, they have faced challenges. Two of these challenges are particularly intractable. First, while translating a religious regulation into law, the state has to prioritize one interpretation over others, which increases sectarianism. Second, as most of the dominant religious interpretations are patriarchal, the state has to either go against these interpretations or trample over women rights. Israel is facing both these complications while trying to administer the praying at the Western Wall of Temple Mount in Jerusalem. 

The Western Wall is the last remnant of the retaining wall of the Second Jewish Holy Temple on Temple Mount that was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E. The Second Holy Temple existed between 530 BCE and 70 CE. This six centuries period is called the Second Temple Period. The First Holy Temple was built by King/Prophet Solomon (reign 970-931 BCE) and was destroyed by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BCE, standing for more than four centuries. According to the Jewish religious tradition, the Third Holy Temple will be built soon at the same place (Temple Mount) where the first two temples existed and the construction is linked to the End of Times/Messianic age. 

Due to Western Wall's connection with the Second Holy Temple, it is considered the holiest spots where Jews can pray. It has been the most revered Jewish pilgrimage place for centuries. According to the Israeli government, more than 10 million people visit the Western Wall (called Kotel) annually. Since coming under Israel’s control after 1967 War, the Temple Mount Area has been carefully managed so as to lessen contact between Jews and Muslims, who also consider Temple Mount a sacred spot. The Kotel area/prayer arrangements are administered by an authority, which is under the control of ultra-Orthodox Jewry, as Israeli state does not recognize other Jewish traditions. So, while Jews from other traditions (Conservative, Reform, etc.) can pray at the Wall, they have to follow the rules based on ultra-Orthodox tradition. Some of the particularly controversial provisions of this tradition are the refusal to allow a mixed-gender space, women praying as a group, women wearing a prayer shawl (tallit) or women reading from a Torah scroll at the Kotel. Currently, these actions may lead to physical and verbal abuse by the ultra-Orthodox as well as arrest, fine or jail sentence by the state. Women groups and Jews from other traditions have been protesting against the ultra-Orthodox monopoly on Kotel for decades. 

Women of the Wall (WOW), formed in 1998, is an organization working to increase women rights of prayer at the Kotel. It has been appealing to state and courts to end discrimination at the Kotel. It filed its first case in Supreme Court of Israel in 1991. After several delays, wins and losses, the issue is still not settled. The WOW continued to pray together and aloud while ultra-Orthodox continued to harass and abuse them. However, WOW were not reading directly from the Torah. In 2104, WOW smuggled a tiny Torah and read from it. In April 2015, one of the men handed them one of the 300 full-sized Torahs, which are only available to men, and women started reading from it. Violence broke out as ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) men entered the women section and tried to physically take Torah away.  Police stopped them but in May locked the gates to prevent women from having Torahs again (See Women of the Wall). To resolve the deteriorating situation Israeli government formed an advisory team. On the recommendations of this team, in January 2016, the Israeli government created a permanent and separate area - an egalitarian prayer space - where ultra-Orthodox rules would not be applicable.

The approved area will be a 900-square-meter section that will be built to replace the temporary platform that was set up in the Southern area of the Western Wall next to Robinson’s Arch some two years ago. The permanent structure will be much larger and will be built with a multi level structure.  In addition, the entrance to the new area will be accessed by a common entrance that will include entrance to the traditional gender-segregated prayer areas already existing.  The new prayer section will also enjoy equal visibility. The "upper plaza" situated outside the official prayer areas will no longer be under the same control as the Western Wall as a result of this new agreement and, as a result, official national ceremonies will take place in which  men and women will now be able to sit together and women can sing. (See Prayer arrangements at the Western Wall (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

The WOW, international Jewry, Reform and Conservative movements were happy with this compromise but ultra-Orthodox public and political parties were not. They are accusing WOW of being more interested in political posturing and deliberate provocation than in religion (See Western Wall rabbi: Women desecrating site by bringing in Torah and The Western Wall Is No Place for Political Posturing). Meir Porush, a member of the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party said that the Women of the Wall to be “sent to the dogs.” He was reprimanded by the Knesset Ethics Committee for his statement (See Knesset Ethics Committee reprimands Haredi MK for the biblical insult to Women of the Wall). 

Source: The Times of Israel (AFP/GALI TIBBON)

The Israeli Chief Rabbinate Council, which is also controlled by the ultra-Orthodox, also leapt into the fray and has forbidden the government from implementing the compromise recommendations:

The council demands that the government of Israel suspend the decision until such a time that it fulfills the obligation to hold a consultation with the Chief Rabbinate, in accordance with the law. It grants a foothold in the holy place to a group that has for years uprooted Zion and Jerusalem from their prayer book, and which publicly declares that they do not view the Torah of Israel as unique and do not believe in the fundamentals of the Jewish faith, one of whose foundations is ‘This is the Torah, it will not be replaced.’ This is a serious matter. The Land of Israel is outraged by the introduction of alien things into the holy place. (See Chief Rabbinate: Israel Must Suspend New Western Wall Prayer Arrangements) 

As ultra-Orthodox parties are part of the current ruling coalition, they enjoy enormous power. They were not happy with the compromise and eventually forced Prime Minister Netanyahu to rethink. In March 2016, he announced that bureau chief to revisit the compromise deal given his ultra-Orthodox partners’ objections. This change of stance, of course, did not go well with the WOW and Reform and Conservative Jews and they have decided to file an appeal in the Supreme Court (See Pluralist groups warn government over foot-dragging on Western Wall deal. So stay tuned for more controversy. 

Irish Nationalism, Easter Rising (1916) and Catholic Church

Easter Rising is a seminal event in the Irish history. Following a brief summary of the uprising against British during the First World War from history.com:

On Easter Monday, April 24, 1916, a group of Irish nationalists proclaimed the establishment of the Irish Republic and, along with some 1,600 followers, staged a rebellion against the British government in Ireland. The rebels seized prominent buildings in Dublin and clashed with British troops. Within a week, the insurrection had been suppressed and more than 2,000 people were dead or injured. The leaders of the rebellion soon were executed. Initially, there was little support from the Irish people for the Easter Rising; however, public opinion later shifted and the executed leaders were hailed as martyrs. In 1921, a treaty was signed that in 1922 established the Irish Free State, which eventually became the modern-day Republic of Ireland.

On the eve of the hundredth anniversary of Easter Rising, a prominent Irish theologian, intellectual, and academician argued that religion/Catholicism was used by the leaders of the uprising against British colonial rule. Father Seamus Murphy, who is the associate professor of philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, accused the leaders of the rising, including Patrick Pearse, of instrumentally using Catholicism, its symbols and its teachings:

Pearse, familiar with but not overpious about, his Catholicism, uses the Old Testament and scapegoat themes, but NOT with Christian meaning...However, since all this superficially resembles some Catholic mass themes, he is able to channel the Catholic energy that is out there among ordinary Irish Catholics in the direction of a violent bloody undemocratic and intolerant nationalism. It’s very clever.

Catholic leaders at the time of the uprising in 1916 were also not supportive of this uprising because of its recklessness, futility, violence, and being carried by members of a secret society, Irish Republican Brotherhood. Though sympathetic to the sentiments of the men and women that took part in the uprising, the Catholic hierarchy, including the Pope, repudiated the act and helped the British re-establish law and order. However, later on, Catholic hierarchy softened its stance towards the rebels as they were afraid of losing the confidence of laity.

Source: http://riveredge.bccls.org/children.shtml

Well, this should not surprise anybody who has an understanding of religious nationalism, which always uses religion as a tool for nationalism. Very few religious nationalist leaders are religiously observant. The established church always have a complicated relationship with religious-nationalist leadership as they are not pious and are usually ready to bend religious edicts/principles, if it helps their cause. However, it is important to remember that church leadership is itself not immune from using religion to preserve or enhance its power.

Eamonn McCann, writing in The Irish Times, presents the view that the Catholic religious leadership was also trying to increase their power and used the Irish nationalist sentiment to their advantage in early 20th century. McCann, who is a political activist, atheist and socialist, has written extensively on religion in Ireland, including Dear God The price of religion in Ireland. He contests the view that Catholic hierarchy condemned the uprising:

It is said that “the bishops condemned the Rising”. This is at best an exaggeration, repeated today in efforts to project the Rising as a secular event. In fact, there were 31 Catholic bishops in Ireland in 1916, of whom only seven explicitly condemned the rebels. Most of the rest kept cannily quiet, before placing themselves soon at the head of the national movement which was to arise from the Dublin rubble.

He argues that the Catholic hierarchy soon owned the Easter Rising as well as the broader nationalist movement and managed to defeat the radical/Marxist/secular element in the nationalist movement that has led the uprising in 1916. Not surprisingly, Ireland emerged as a 'ultra-conservative confessional State' six years later:

The enthusiastic support of the (Catholic) hierarchy was vital for the success of the crucial 1918 anti-conscription campaign. “The Irish people have a right to resist [conscription] by every means consonant with the law of God” declared the bishops in a “manifesto” read at all Masses. This can be seen as the definitive moment when the endorsement of the church passed from the Home Rule Party to Sinn Féin. The bishops were nothing if not adept in detecting what way the wind was blowing...The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 partitioning the island handed the bishops a State in which their ideological mastery was already established. Hence some of the horrors inflicted on the most vulnerable of the population in the half century which followed. There were no protest marches against church rule. They wouldn’t have been allowed.

So, Murphy is right to be indignant of what Pearce did, the usage of to use Catholic themes for his mundane nationalist objectives. However, as McCann explains, Pearce and other nationalists could not have used Catholic themes, if the Catholic Church hierarchy was not supporting them.